Oliver v. Utah Labor Comm'n
2017 UT 39
| Utah | 2017Background
- In 2000 Mark Oliver was injured in a construction-site fall; he worked intermittently afterward and stopped working in 2007. In 2012 he applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits under Utah Code § 34A-2-413.
- The parties submitted conflicting medical and vocational evidence. An independent medical panel concluded Oliver could perform medium-duty work with occasional absences, short unscheduled breaks, and leg elevation 5–10 minutes per hour, and could "concentrate, communicate, work, remain at work for the scheduled time, and cope with the work setting."
- An ALJ found Oliver permanently totally disabled and awarded benefits; the Utah Labor Commission reversed, finding Oliver failed two statutory elements: (1) proof that his impairments limited his ability to do "basic work activities," and (2) proof that his impairments prevented performance of the "essential functions" of work for which he had been qualified at the time of the accident.
- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the Labor Commission, interpreting "limit" to mean any limitation (no matter how slight) and consulting extra-record Bureau of Labor Statistics materials to question Oliver's qualifications as a delivery driver.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the court of appeals misinterpreted the statute, misallocated burdens, and improperly considered extra-record materials, and reversed—upholding the Labor Commission's denial of PTD benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "limit" in § 34A-2-413(1)(c)(ii) (basic work activities) | Oliver: any limitation on basic work activities suffices; the court of appeals followed this view | Labor Comm'n/Bulloch: "limit" requires a meaningful/significant restriction that impairs ability to participate in the workforce | Court: "limit" means a meaningful/significant restriction on the core capabilities needed for a broad range of jobs; court of appeals' "any limit" reading reversed |
| Application of basic work activities standard to Oliver's evidence | Oliver: medical panel’s findings re pain, standing/lifting limits, and need for breaks/occasional absences support a limitation on basic work activities | Labor Comm'n: panel findings show ability to perform medium-duty work and to "remain at work," so limitations are not reasonable/significant limits on basic activities | Held: substantial evidence supports Labor Commission's finding that Oliver was not limited in basic work activities |
| Whether Labor Commission correctly found Oliver qualified as a delivery truck driver at time of accident | Oliver (on appeal): record unclear—he was not qualified as a delivery driver when injured | Labor Comm'n/Bulloch: Oliver failed to prove lack of qualification; burden rests with claimant | Held: claimant bears burden to prove lack of qualification; absence of record evidence cuts against Oliver; Labor Commission's finding upheld |
| Use of extra-record materials by Court of Appeals (BLS/Occupational Handbook) | Oliver: court of appeals relied on external source not in record | Bulloch/Labor Comm'n: review must be limited to administrative record | Held: Court of Appeals erred by consulting extra-record materials; appellate review limited to administrative record |
Key Cases Cited
- Provo City v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 345 P.3d 1242 (Utah 2015) (defines “basic work activities” as abilities/aptitudes necessary to do most jobs and grounds interpretation here)
- Nichols v. Jacobsen Constr. Co., 374 P.3d 3 (Utah 2016) (standard of review on certiorari: correctness for court of appeals’ decisions)
- Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 164 P.3d 384 (Utah 2007) (elements of PTD claims are factual and claimant bears preponderance burden)
- Maxfield v. Herbert, 284 P.3d 647 (Utah 2012) (canon: borrowed legal terms of art carry their foreign-law meaning when legislature intentionally adopts them)
- Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 248 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (statutory text must be read in linguistic, structural, and statutory context)
- Ramsay v. Kane Cty. Human Res. Special Serv. Dist., 322 P.3d 1163 (Utah 2014) (plain-meaning approach: consult context before finding ambiguity)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (discussing federal courts’ reaction to Social Security Administration’s application of "significant" impairment standard)